Sowell's Law Blog

On Nuclear Power Plants

2011-10-05T22:40:00.000-07:00

I was part of a discussion over the past few days on WattsUpWithThat, that started out (the primary topic) discussing Obama's statement that within 5 years, the US would have a car battery that would achieve 130 miles per gallon. While that is a non-sensical statement from an engineering standpoint, it was made by a career politician who is also an attorney - that is, he has zero background in this. He did refer to Energy Secretary Chu, a Nobel-prize-winning physicist who should have known better than to make such a statement. However, it is possible that Obama got it wrong and mis-quoted Secretary Chu.

Batteries contain what is referred to as amp-hours, not gallons, and the amp-hours are available at a certain voltage (within a relatively low tolerance). That is, the battery's voltage will decline somewhat as the battery is discharged. Standard car batteries in the US operate at 12 volts, nominally. Electric car batteries operate at far higher voltages, and this varies depending on the manufacturer.

At some point in the commentary on WUWT, nuclear power plants were brought up and their virtues were extolled. I, of course, stand ready to refute any and all such extollations because nuclear power is about the worst way to generate electricity known to man.

As support for my proposition, I cited two studies, one being the excellent analysis by Craig A. Severance, CPA, where he produced results that show a new US-built nuclear power plant must charge 25 to 30 cents per kWh in order to pay for the investment plus operating costs. Unfortunately, that paper does not appear to be available on the internet at this time. Even then, Severance's number is too low because it did not reflect the subsequent US requirement that all new nuclear power plants be designed and constructed to withstand a direct hit from a large commercial aircraft. Furthermore, the new plants must be designed so that not only the containment building is intact, but also the cooling system and the spent fuel storage area. I have stated that this requirement should add another 5 cents per kWh to that calculated by Severance, thus bringing the cost to 35 cents per kWh.

The second study I cited, since the doubters in the comment thread demanded "proof," was from the California Energy Commission, a state agency, and their published comparison of multiple generating technologies for both 2009 and for 2018. The report is "Comparative Costs of California Central Stations Electricity Generation" dated January 2010. One of the technologies is a single reactor, Westinghouse AP-1000 design that produces 960 MW. Their assessment also concluded that a merchant nuclear plant's levelized cost of electricity is 34 cents per kWh. They also assessed Investor Owned Utilities and Publicly Owned Utilities, with costs at 27 and 17 cents, respectively.

The WUWT commenters of course disagreed, and cited some other studies giving the cost of power from new nuclear plants at 3 to 6 cents per kWh. This is, of course, ludicrous. Anyone with the slightest background in cost estimating and financial analysis will conclude that no project can be built without massive subsidies that costs $8 to $10 billion, requires 4 to 8 years construction time, and produces only 1000 MW electricity at maximum output, plus relies on sale of electricity at 6 cents per kWh. One must bear in mind that the plant also must shut down periodically for refueling and will incur other operating problems that curtail generation. Therefore, over the long term, the 1000 MW will be derated to approximately 850 to 900 MW.

There are several key points to keep in mind about the true costs of nuclear power. First, what is the cost of the design, materials, services, equipment, and labor to construct. This would be the "instant" cost, that is, if it could all be built in a single month, what would it cost? Typically, the instant cost is approximately $4 billion for a 1000 MW plant. California Energy Commission (CEC) used $3.95 billion for 960 MW. But, of course a nuclear power plant cannot be constructed in a single month and will be built over a period of several years. The longer the construction schedule, the more that two other items become important: materials and labor inflation, and financing costs.

The great debatable item is the time to construct. Nuclear power proponents insist that new plants will be built in only 4 years, or 48 months from groundbreaking to first generation. This has never been the case in the US, and indeed throughout most of the world. Typical for the US is 7 to 10 years, and some lasted much, much longer. Even in Europe, the plant being built in Finland is years behind schedule and has issued no expected completion date (see second half of my article at this link).

As the construction period increases, so too will the costs of materials and labor increase due to inflation. Nuclear power plants require great quantities of concrete and steel, which are subject to cost inflation. Also, each year that construction continues adds a higher and higher amount of interest on the financing costs. For a large nuclear project, it is common for the financing interest alone to reach $1 billion per year in the latter years of construction, especially for a two-reactor plant with both reactors proceeding at the same time.

Another key aspect of a nuclear power plant being constructed is the need to reassess the design and incorporate any lessons learned from recent disasters or mishaps from the approximately 400 operating reactors around the world. This is frequently cited by nuclear advocates as the key reason plants' costs spiraled out of control in the 70s and 80s, and they insist that such days are behind us and nuclear power plant design is now mature. This is not the case, as the recent disaster at Japan's Fukushima nuclear complex clearly demonstrated. That disaster was the result of two almost-simultaneous events, a large earthquake and a large tsunami a few minutes later. Many nuclear advocates point to the land-locked sites of nuclear power plants in the US and concluded that they are perfectly safe because a tsunami cannot possibly reach them. However, a recent earthquake on the East Coast shook at least one nuclear power plant and the structural damage is not yet clear. The simple fact is that we do not know how to predict the largest earthquake that could strike. We could design for an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 and then experience an earthquake of 8.0 or even 8.5.

Also, earthquakes are not all the same. Some shake the ground from side to side, others have more vertical shaking. Some are a combination. Designs for such earthquakes are very complex.

Yet another key aspect of new nuclear power plants is the intense opposition by well-funded groups that bring lawsuits to halt construction. The anti-nuclear sentiment is very strong around the world, and in the US. The memories of the faulty construction, gross abuses during construction, and sheer incompetence of some project management from the 70s and 80s is still very fresh. If the next round of nuclear power plants also has the same shoddy workmanship, intimidation and threats to inspectors and auditors, the advent of the internet will ensure rapid whistleblowing. Delays will inevitably result.

Furthermore, it can now be shown via various studies that new nuclear power is not a cost-effective means of generating power (see Figure 1, below). It can be argued that the state governing boards must agree to power projects that provide safe, reliable, and low-cost power to the public. Nuclear power does not fit those criteria.

Figure 1

Relative Costs of Power Generation in 2018

Source: California Energy Commission study from January 2010

Note that the Nuclear Power Plant is the most expensive, except for the

three simple-cycle natural gas plants that are used for peak power only

Finally, nuclear power plants consume far more water per unit of electricity produced than almost any other technology. The reactor must be kept cooled, and the steam from the turbines must be condensed. A nuclear plant will deliver approximately 3 times as much heat into cooling water as is delivered as electricity. In contrast, a natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine plant will use approximately one-fourth of that cooling water. Stated another way, the nuclear plant will require 4 to 5 times as much cooling water. By cooling water, the meaning here is water that is evaporated in the heat removal process.

For all these reasons, nuclear power plants should never be built. There are far safer, more cost effective, and less water intensive means of producing electricity for the future.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

Saudis to Build Nuclear Plants at $7 Billion Each

2011-09-30T19:09:00.000-07:00

"[T]he kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] will build 16 nuclear reactors by 2030 at a cost of around $7 billion each." - source.

In an ever-growing list of countries that either are building, or plan to build, nuclear-powered electric power plants, none are building at an affordable cost. The USA, Finland, China, now Saudi Arabia all publish numbers that indicate a new, 1,000 MW reactor costs anywhere from $7 to $11 billion. China is building a six-reactor plant for $66 billion, or $11 billion apiece. The recently-cancelled South Texas Nuclear Project Expansion in the USA was to cost $17 billion, but that was just a dream; no shovel had been turned and no delays had yet started, with the inevitable increase in financing costs. Fully costed, the STNP expansion would be at least $22 billion, more likely $25 billion.

At these price levels, electricity must be sold for at least 35 cents per kWh, just to pay for the investment and provide a reasonable return.

The Saudis indicated that their growing economy requires a 7 percent per year increase in electric power production. They don't want to burn oil for making power, they would rather sell the oil. Thus, the need for nuclear power plants. The Saudis are smart, as I've written before, but they are mistaken on this one. No economy grows, nor can it grow, at much above 3 percent per year for very long. A temporary growth spurt might occur of 7 or 8 percent for a year or two, but this is not sustainable.

Thus, there is no need for the nuclear power plants. The Saudis should, instead, do what the rest of the world does where economics are important: build combined-cycle gas turbine power plants (CCGT). The Saudis have access to natural gas in the Middle East, and could easily purchase what they don't self-produce. These CCGT power plants are much more efficient than conventional steam-based power plants, at 59 percent compared to approximately 35 percent. They also do not use nearly as much water, which is a huge consideration for nuclear power plants. Where, and how, will the Saudis obtain sufficient cooling water for 16 nuclear power plants? Nuclear plants require at least twice as much water for cooling, compared to the CCGT plants. Of course, the nuclear power plants could be built on the coast and use seawater. This greatly increases the cost of the plant because seawater is more corrosive than fresh water.

Perhaps the Saudis have another motive, from watching what the Iranians have done in the past several years with their nuclear "power" program. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Saudis are in a race for parity and do not want the Iranians to have the upper hand, even in nuclear power plants.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding Review by OIG

2011-09-28T18:19:00.000-07:00

The US EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released today itsreport titled “Procedural Review of EPA’s Greenhouse Gases Endangerment FindingData Quality Processes.”

It is important to note that this was aProcedural review and not a Substantive review of the underlying science. Procedural review merely means comparing theprocedures that EPA used to what is required under the various laws and regulations. Substantive review means evaluating the dataand science that EPA relied on in forming their Endangerment Finding. The Procedural rules that EPA must followdepend on whether the Technical Support Document (TSD) is a “highly influentialscientific assessment” or not. OIGconsiders the TSD to be a highly influential scientific assessment, but EPA didnot. There is a higher standard ofcare, or procedures that must be followed, for a highly influential scientificassessment. It is these additionalprocedures that OIG found lacking in EPA’s work.

Background

For some background, and a description of a TSD: As the primary scientific basis for EPA’sfinding, the [EPA] relied upon assessments conducted by other organizations[the IPCC, National Research Council, and US Global Change Research Program]. EPA summarized the results of these and otherscientific assessments in a technical support document (TSD). There are specified criteria by which a document is to be judgedto determine if it is a highly influential scientific assessment. OIG presents these criteria in its report as:

“A highly influential scientific assessment is a scientificassessment that:

A) Could have a potential impact of more than$500 million in any
year on either the public or privatesector, or

B) Is novel, controversial, or precedentsetting, or has significant
interagency interest.”

OIG stated the level of peer review for the highlyinfluential scientific assessments, and goes on to say that:

“For highly influential scientific assessments, OMB guidancerequires more attention to peer review consideration such as individual versuspanel review, timing, scope of the review, selection of reviewers, disclosureand attribution, public participation, and disposition of reviewer comments. Ifthe material to be disseminated falls within OMB’s definition of highly influentialscientific assessment, OMB requires the agency to adhere to the peer reviewprocedures identified in Section III of its bulletin.

OMG guidance also requires that agencies certify compliancewith the requirements of the bulletin and information quality guidelines whenusing influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessmentsto support a regulatory action. This certification and other relevant materialsshould be included in the administrative record for the action.”

Next, OIG discussed what the EPA did procedurally. “EPA had the TSD reviewed by a panel of 12federal climate change scientists. This review did not meet all [Office ofManagement and Budget] OMB requirements for peer review of a highly influentialscientific assessment primarily because the review results and EPA’s responsewere not publicly reported, and because 1 of the 12 reviewers was an EPAemployee.”

No public reporting of the 12 scientists’ review, no publicreporting of EPA’s response to that review, and having an EPA staff member asone of the 12 scientists were cited as procedural errors. This is essentially,for the first two errors, a lack of transparency. The public does not know what the reviewersfound and reported, nor the EPA’s response, if any. Were the findings unanimous? Or, was there a split of opinion? Did the EPA ignore the review panel’sfindings? At this point, we don’t know. Theobvious conflict of interest from the reviewer who is an EPA staff membershould have made his or her opinion or vote irrelevant. OMB requires an external peer review.

Reasons Given by EPA why TSD was not Considered a HighlyInfluential Scientific Assessment

“They [EPA} noted that the TSD consisted only of sciencethat was previously peer reviewed and that these reviews were deemed adequateunder the Agency’s policy. They also stated that, as described in the finalFederal Register notice, the Administrator primarily relied upon assessments conductedby other organizations rather than the TSD, which summarizes the conclusionsand findings of these other assessments.”

End Results

It appears that the OIG will allow the Endangerment Findingto stand, and is recommending only that EPA revise its procedures forfuture. This could be a wronginterpretation, however nowhere in the OIG report is the EPA required to reviseor re-issue the missing transparency documents, nor hold a second andindependent review by qualified scientists.

The fact that only procedures were evaluated means that the clearly false statements and conclusions of many of the peer-reviewed papers and documents were considered acceptable by EPA. As reported earlier on SLB, the EPA accepted such wildly inaccurate statements as glaciers disappearing in the Himalayas. Also, as the State of Texas wrote in their recent petition, regarding the Climategate emails,

"[t]he emails do not reflect the work of objective

scientists dispassionately conducting their work and zealously pursuing the truth. Rather

they reveal a cadre of activist scientists colluding and scheming to advance what they

want the science to be—even where the empirical data suggest a different outcome." Also, "to the extent their [these scientists'] objectivity, impartiality, truthfulness, and scientific

integrity are compromised or in doubt, so too is the objectivity, impartiality, truthfulness,

and scientific integrity of the IPCC report, the CRU temperature data, the NOAA

temperature data, and other scientific research that is shown to have relied on their

compromised research."

Texas' petition also shows how the IPCC authors manipulated the climate temperature data, citing the by-now infamous email of using a "trick" to "hide the decline." Also, especially egregious data manipulation is discussed with Russian and New Zealand temperature data. Such manipulation showed undue warming. Also, the IPCC admitted they have lost critical climate data.

Then the real fun begins, with several major discredited claims, using non-peer-reviewed sources. These include Himalayan glaciers receding faster than anyone thought (the aren't). Also, Chinese temperature data was seriously flawed, and had no source documents. They made up the data. Next, the claim that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level, and subject to inundation from sea level rise. This is erroneous, as only 26 percent is below sea level. The fourth and final example included in the Petition for Reconsideration is the wild claim that "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian rain forest could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation." This was from the non-scientific, but wildly agenda-driven World Wildlife Federation, the WWF.

Apparently, these types of "peer-reviewed" scientific conclusions on the impact of man-made CO2 on the planet's climate are acceptable to the US EPA.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

US Long-Term Temperature Trend from NCDC

2011-09-21T20:47:00.000-07:00

There is a problem in the NCDC data (National Climatic Data Center, US Department of Commerce, NOAA Satellite and Information Service) for the United States. The problem is that the reported average temperature trend for the US does not agree with the mean, nor the area-weighted average, of the 48 contiguous states. NCDC reports the temperature trend for the 48 contiguous states is 1.2 degrees F per century. However, the mean of the individual states is 0.78 degrees F per century, and the area-weighted average for the 48 states is 0.74 degrees F per century.

This is a problem. If the NCDC cannot get it right, how much of their data is wrong, and how many other statements issuing from there are also wrong?

Below (Figure 1) is a simple table, listing each of the contiguous 48 states in the US, alphabetically, with the temperature trend next to each state, in degrees F per century.

Figure 1

US 48 Contiguous States and Long-term Temperature Trend, Deg F/Century

Data from US NCDC

The area-weighted average was computed by weighting each temperature trend by the relative geographical area of each state. This does not change the average much, but gives a better number because small states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, etc.) do not have an undue influence over large states (Texas, Montana, California, etc.)

Other things pop out upon closer inspection of this table.

There is a problem of uneven heating in adjacent states. As an example, Texas shows a trend of zero degrees F per century, yet its neighboring state to the north, Oklahoma, is warming at 0.7 degrees F per century. This is not likely, nor is it due to CO2 or any other so-called "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere. As I have stated before, how does CO2 know to ignore the entire state of Texas, yet concentrate its radiant heat beams on Oklahoma? Note that, in earlier posts on SLB, I pointed out that adjacent cities have grossly different warming trends, again showing that CO2 cannot do what climate scientists claim it does.

This gets even worse when one examines Texas' westerly neighbor, New Mexico. New Mexico is warming at the rate of 0.9 degrees F per century. How does CO2 know to focus its beams on New Mexico, yet ignore Texas?

Another example is the pair of states, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Oklahoma, as stated just above, is warming at just under the national average at 0.7 degrees F per century. Meanwhile, its neighbor to the east, Arkansas, is cooling at minus 0.3 degrees F per century. Again, one must question how is this possible, if CO2 is responsible for the warming? How can Arkansas be cooling? I've been to Arkansas and can attest to the great lush green growth in that state, as CO2 abounds.

Yet another example is the adjacent states of North Dakota and South Dakota. North Dakota is warming at the alarming rate of 2.5 degrees F per century. Its neighbor to the south, South Dakota, however is warming at half that rate, 1.2 degrees F per century. How does CO2 know to focus so much energy from its heat rays on North Dakota?

Yet another example is the adjacent states of Pennsylvania, and New York. Both are of comparable size and located in the Northeast. Pennsylvania is warming very slightly at 0.1 degrees F per century. However, New York to its immediate north is warming at a much higher rate of 1.2 degrees F per century. Again, how does CO2 know to ignore Pennsylvania and concentrate its heat rays on New York?

Then, there is the entire band of states along the edge of the Gulf of Mexico: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. Their reported temperature trends are zero for Louisiana, but negative for the others: Mississippi (negative 0.7 degrees F per century), Alabama (negative 0.8 degrees F per century), and Georgia (negative 0.6 degrees F per century). Contrast those to Florida, immediately south of Georgia, which has a warming of 0.3 degrees F per century. How could CO2 ignore the southern states but heat up other states?

There are other curious adjacent states with wide disparities:

California: 0.7 degrees F per century, and Nevada to the east at 2.3 degrees F per century.

Michigan: 0.1 degrees F per century, and Ohio to the south at 0.7 degrees F per century.

Finally, the overall trend of 1.1 degrees F per century for the US contiguous 48 states is repeated on the US EPA's website, with the following text: (note that the EPA website uses 1.1 degrees, while NCDC reports the trend is 1.2 degrees. Perhaps that is acceptable for government work, and is lost in the rounding error.)

United States Surface Temperature Trends

Observations compiled by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center indicate that over the past century, temperatures rose across the contiguous United States at an average rate of 0.11°F per decade (1.1°F per century). Average temperatures rose at an increased rate of 0.56°F per decade from 1979 to 2005. The most recent eight-, nine-, and ten-year periods were the warmest on record.

Warming occurred throughout most of the U.S., with all but three of the eleven climate regions showing an increase of more than 1°F since 1901. The greatest temperature increase occurred in Alaska (3.3°F per century). The Southeast experienced a very slight cooling trend over the entire period (-0.04°F per century), but shows warming since 1979." (bold emphasis added)

Meanwhile, the coastal regions of the west coast (Washington, Oregon, and California) all show a very sudden and steep temperature decline since 2002. The average for the coastal areas is negative 21 degrees F per century. One can only wonder why CO2 has abandoned the warming task set for it by climate scientists. Perhaps the coastal cooling has more to do with the rapidly cooling Pacific Ocean along the west coast of the US.

In summary, one can only wonder at what other examples of gross exaggeration are to be found upon close inspection of the data, and the conclusions arrived therefrom by the alarmist climate science community. Also, the individual states show gross disparities in warming rates, from a high of 2.5 for North Dakota to a low of negative 0.8 for Alabama. Adjacent states show gross disparities that indicate that CO2 cannot be causing any warming at all. CO2 cannot act capriciously, but must act uniformly if it is indeed a physical phenomenon and not a figment of imagination.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California. Where it is indeed growing colder year by year.

From Man-made Global Warmist to Skeptic, My Journey

2011-09-11T01:44:00.000-07:00

By Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California September 11,2011

Several of my friends have asked me lately how I can be so positive that CO2 is not the evil, planet-killing pollutant that the science community insists that it is. This missive is a partial response to those friends. I will have more to add, likely some figures, charts, graphs, links to other sites and such. But, here is the first effort. Fair warning: this is a long, long piece. It covers a lot of ground. It is as accurate as I can make it. I haven't delved into the "why", but concentrated on the "what" and some of the "how." There are a few "whos" in here, also. Most of this has been covered by me in one or several earlier posts on SLB.

Scientists said CO2 emissions are heating the Earth, withdire, even catastrophic consequences about to happen: ice caps melt, sea levelrise, shores inundated, massive very strong hurricanes and more of them, heatwaves with deadly tropical diseases moving into temperate zones, crop failuresdue to heat and desertification, human health pandemics from heat-aggravatedissues, snow disappearing from the California Sierra Nevada range, fresh watershortages, the list went on and on.

The solution, the scientists said, was to stop using fossilfuels, e.g. natural gas, coal, and oil. Instead, we were to conserve and learn to use less electric power, driveelectric cars, make gasoline from corn-based ethanol, make diesel from recycledanimal fats and seed oils, recycle all our garbage into trash-burning powerplants, build wind-turbines and solar panel-farms to generate electricity,collect methane from dairy farms’ manure pits and landfills, then burn themethane for fuel in power plants. But,until those technologies could carry the load, we had to capture CO2 from powerplants and big furnaces, and hide it away forever. This hiding was named “sequestration.”

My interest was piqued, to say the least. The Earth is becoming un-inhabitable? Millions of climate refugees would be on themove, seeking places to live? Wars wouldbe fought over food, and fresh water? Coastlines would flood and be gone forever? And this is all due to our fossil fueluse? My industry? The oil and gas industry?

I knew that chemical engineers would be involved, and in thethick of it, too. Chemical engineers arethe ones that know how to provide substitutes for oil, for diesel, make ethanolfrom corn or cellulose. Chemicalengineers also are the ones that know how to design, build, and operate aCO2-capture plant, and find ways to either chemically bond the dangerous CO2 orfind ways to permanently store it underground as part of thatsequestration.

So, I began to look into what chemical engineers could do tosolve the problem, and seek ways to benefit from my chemical engineeringbackground, and legal expertise as an attorney. Surely, there would be some opportunities in all this for a guy with myskills. I had to do my due diligence,and verify the scientific claims. First, just how does CO2 cause all this warming? I had worked with CO2 for decades, in manyforms and many places. CO2 is acombustion product (along with water vapor) from burning natural gas, otherlight hydrocarbons, gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, petroleum coke, wood, coal,even peat and dried animal dung. I knewmore than most, I supposed. I haddesigned and installed and operated liquid CO2 storage tanks, equipment togasify liquid CO2, to compress it, to re-liquefy the compressed gas. I had also designed and operated processequipment to scrub CO2 out of a furnace’s flue gases, and designed and operatedother process equipment that made solid particles out of the CO2. I figured there would be lots of opportunitiesfor me.

Finding out how much CO2 needed to be removed seemed like agood place to start. I began by readingblog posts on a website called RealClimate.org, where they claimed “realclimate science written by real climate scientists.” That seemed like a good thing, to get theinformation right from the experts. Isaw there some charts and graphs, and Iunderstand charts and graphs. Chemicalengineers know all about such things. One of those graphs showed the earth’s global average temperature sinceabout 1880 up until 2005. There was adramatic and noticeable upward trend from around 1975 until the present. That trend, if it continued, would certainlyappear to make the world hotter, and indeed, perhaps the ice caps would all melt.

So, being a good engineer, and a lawyer trained to look atall sides of the issue, I looked at the rest of the chart. It looked a bit odd, to me. You see, there was a rather flat area fromaround 1940 to 1975, or perhaps even a slight downward trend in those 35years. Hmmm…I wonder what causedthat? Perhaps CO2 was goingdown in that period? Made a note tocheck that out.

Then, the period before 1940 really caught my eye. From about 1900 to 1940, the graph showed aremarkably similar upward trend, just like the one from 1975 to 2005. Hmmmm, again…how did that warming trend happen? Was CO2 rising in those days? And if it was, why did it stop around1940? The world was in a global war inthe late 30s and first half of the 40s….did we not use any coal, or oil, ornatural gas in those days? Somethingseemed not quite right about that, as I distinctly remember from my readingabout the oil industry that oil production rose dramatically during World WarII, due to all the military machines that needed gasoline and diesel fuel, andthe ships that needed fuel oil to run. Iknew that atomic power was not around until well after the war, so all thoseships were running on heavy fuel oil, what we referred to as Bunker C oil. Also, factories across the world werehumming at full capacity before and during World War II, turning out munitions,steel, aluminum, war machines, tanks, jeeps, ships, and all the other trappingsof war. Not much conservation going onthere, I thought. Lots of CO2 beingemitted, too. Nobody cared about efficienciesor conservation, or even pollution, the only thought was for more production asfast as possible. There was a war on,after all.

I then looked into the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere,thinking it was some great percent, probably 3 or 4 or maybe 5 percent. The graphs I found looked wrong, atfirst. The CO2 was nowhere near 5percent. Not even 1 percent. It was so low it was measured in parts permillion! About 365 ppm (parts permillion), I found, and increasing by about 2 ppm per year. The measurements went back to 1959, and evenmore amazing to me, this 365 ppm was on a bone-dry basis. That means, the air sample was desiccated, ordried very thoroughly to remove any water vapor before quantifying the CO2amount. That is actually a goodpractice, because it eliminates any variations due to changes in airhumidity. But on a practical basis, ifthe atmosphere contains very much water vapor, then the actual CO2concentration will be somewhat less. Iworked it out, and for air in the tropics at 80 degrees F and 90 percenthumidity, air contains about 0.2 pounds of water per pound of dry air. Roughly, 17 percent of the air we breathe inis water vapor. That, then, would reducethe CO2 concentration also by 17 percent, so that 365 ppm was actually about310 ppm. Wow. Could CO2 at 310 ppm be causing all thattrouble? I had to see how thisworked.

It didn’t take me long, looking around on the internet tofind that scientists were claiming that CO2 absorbs heat from the Earth’ssurface, and re-radiates about half of that heat back down to Earth. The effect was termed the “greenhouse”effect, and CO2 was labeled a “greenhouse” gas. Hmmm…that’s not how greenhouses work, I knew, because we had designedand built greenhouses, too. Greenhousesstay warm just like a car stays warm when the windows are rolled up. Heat from the sun passes through the glass,is absorbed by the dark green plants, and heats up the air inside thegreenhouse. Winds cannot blow the warmair away because the glass walls and roof are present. In engineering terms, there is no convectionheat transfer. Well, this “greenhouse”gas may be a term of art, and I have certainly encountered many such terms ofart in engineering, and in the law. Moreinvestigation was clearly needed.

So, I found the Kyoto Protocol, which had a lot to say aboutgreenhouse gases. Turns out, there are sixof them, not just CO2. The Kyoto Sixincluded CO2 of course, plus methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride,hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.

Then, how did the CO2 and others absorb heat and re-radiate itback to Earth? And, how did that createa warming? Some things already did notadd up, such as increasing CO2 since 1959 but the temperature cooling from 1940to 1975. More on that, later.

More investigation led me to Anthony Watts’ blog, Watts Up With That. It appeared to be a placewhere articles were posted that questioned the orthodoxy of man-made,CO2-caused global warming. So, I readand read about Al Gore and his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Dr. James Hansen ofNASA who creates the world’s temperature chart, and several other figures. There was something called “The Team” and Idid not know who was on the team, and what game they played. From the context, though, being a member ofThe Team seemed like not a good thing, as the term was used somewhatdisparagingly.

But, back to CO2 and heating the Earth. I read about CO2 absorbing heat. Some small bells went off way deep in mymemory. I had heard about thissomewhere, a long time ago. I pulled outmy ancient handbook of Chemical Engineering, known as Perry’s Handbook. That book is full of rock-solid, never-wrongscience and engineering facts. If it wasin Perry’s, it was a fact. It could berelied upon. Chemical engineers use theprinciples and knowledge found in Perry’s every day, around the world. So, I looked in Perry’s. And I found it. Under Heat Transfer, sub-heading RadiativeHeat Transfer, furnace design. Furnacesusually burn some form of fossil fuel, perhaps coal, or oil, or natural gas, ora mixture of light hydrocarbons if the furnace is in an oil refinery. Home heating furnaces burn a medium oilsimilar to diesel fuel, and there are millions of these around the world. There are a similar number of large,industrial furnaces and boilers in power plants, factories, steel mills,refineries, and chemical plants. Furnacedesign is a very mature art, having been practiced and perfected over not justdecades, but centuries. Even railroadlocomotives burned wood or coal, and have done so for centuries. And, sure enough, one of the correctionfactors that must be included in the furnace design is the effect of CO2 in thecombustion gases. Water vapor also mustbe accounted for, and its effect is even greater than that of CO2.

A bit of an aside is in order, here. When a fossil fuel is burned, a chemicalreaction occurs that gives off a great quantity of heat. A fossil fuel is a hydrocarbon, meaning mostof the molecules are either hydrogen, or carbon. Hence, Hydro-Carbon. Chemists are not very inventive when namingthings, sometimes. Air is added, andheat, and the oxygen in the air reacts chemically with the carbon, and with thehydrogen. One carbon atom combines withtwo oxygen atoms in the air, to form CO2, Carbon Dioxide – meaning one Carbon,and two Oxygens. Again, not very creativenaming. Similarly, two Hydrogen atomsreact with one oxygen atom to form H2O, Di-hydrogen Monoxide, more commonlyknown as Water. The water is in thegaseous state, so it is water vapor. This is important in furnace design, because what flows out of a furnace’sexhaust stack is mostly nitrogen from the air fed into the furnace, very littleoxygen because most of it is reacted, and the rest is water vapor and CO2. How much CO2, and how much water vapor? Is the CO2 a very low concentration, likethat in the atmosphere? Turns out theanswer is no, CO2 is on the order of 19 percent, and water vapor is also about 29percent. This isvery, very different from the concentration in the atmosphere. Stated another way, 19 percent is the sameas 190,000 ppm. So, the concentration ofCO2 is much, much higher in a furnace. What else is different? For onething, the temperatures are much different. CO2 in a furnace is glowing, white-hot. Its temperature is on the order of 1800 degrees F. Yet, in the atmosphere, CO2 is on the orderof 90 degrees F down to - 40 degrees F. I wondered if that made a difference, and if it did, how much? Thebasic answer was that yes, CO2 and water vapor each absorb radiant heat andre-emit that radiant heat. So, thereappeared to be some valid basis for the scientists’ claims that CO2 absorbsheat. But still, I wondered.

I then read some more in the scientific literature and foundthat CO2 only absorbs a small fraction of the radiant heat leaving the Earth’ssurface. A very, very small portion. Not only a very small portion, but the effectof adding more CO2 to the air has a diminishing effect on how much radiantenergy is absorbed. In effect, the atmosphere’s radiantabsorption is the same whether CO2 is present, or not. The effect is further diluted because watervapor also absorbs radiant energy at the same wavelengths as does CO2. Water vapor also absorbs radiant energy atother wavelengths, but there is an overlap with CO2.

So, I sat back and pondered over all this, gave it a goodthinking through. The Earth, as I knew,cooled off rapidly and substantially in the clear desert nights, even in theheat of summer. The cold desert nightsare attributed to the very dry air, that is, almost zero water vapor. This effect is pretty amazing, and one canactually see ice form in a shallow pan at night in the desert when thesurrounding air is above freezing. Thisis a favorite event for Scouts who go desert camping. One takes a shallow pan, such as a browniepan, puts about a quarter inch of fresh water in the pan, and sets the pan downon some insulating material such as Styrofoam or cardboard. We wrapped a dry towel around the sides, too,to keep the air from warming the pan. Sure enough, just before sunrise, we checked and there was a layer ofice on the water surface. Enough heathad escaped from the water via radiation into the black sky above, unimpeded byCO2 or water vapor, to allow the water to chill and create ice. The ice water was great for fillingcanteens.

Yet, one cannot do this at night in a humid climate, such asHouston, Texas where I grew up and also did some camping. The water vapor in the air, even on a clearnight, prevents this.

So, I wondered and pondered the entire question of CO2absorbing heat in the atmosphere. First,the Perry’s handbook made mention of a most important parameter, the “mean beamlength,” or MBL. This refers to thedistance from the hot CO2 and water vapor gases to the furnace tubes where theliquid is contained that must be heated. The greater the distance, the less impact the radiant energy has. This is rather obvious from everydayexperience, also, if anyone has ever built a campfire or lit a candle. Closer to the flame is much hotter, and faraway from the flame is much cooler. Thisis common knowledge, except among very young children. This is also well-known from the planets inthe solar system, with planets closest to the sun being very hot such asMercury, and those farther away growing colder and colder. Yet, the Sun’s surface is the sametemperature. Clearly, distance hassomething to do with the amount of radiant energy absorbed. I wondered just how much energy CO2 couldabsorb at altitudes of 10,000 feet, 20,000 feet, 30,000 feet, and higher. Also, as the atmosphere grows thinner andthinner with altitude, I wondered how many CO2 molecules are present at eachaltitude to absorb whatever heat energy happens to be passing through.

It was rather obvious that even ancient man knew some ofthese basic facts, as references to “the cold stars” are common inliterature. Yet, we now know that starsare in fact suns, and some of them are much bigger and far hotter than oursun. We cannot feel the heat from them,due to the very great distances measured in billions of miles, if nottrillions. Far away means verycold. Up close means very hot.

I had not yet formed a conclusion, a firm opinion, on allthe scientific claims of CO2 causing the earth to warm, but it was lookingpretty shaky to me. Then I considered myengineering background in process control, and kept thinking aboutcampfires. The Law of the Campfire issimple, and was stated briefly above: ifyou are too hot, move back. If you aretoo cold, move closer. Closer ishotter, every time, for a campfire that has constant heat output.

And yet, I had seen the chart that showed CO2 was slowlyrising, a nice smooth curve. At the sametime, the average temperature for the entire earth had peaked in about 1940 anddecreased for 35 years. Then, the trendreversed, and the earth started warming again. That is impossible, if CO2 is what is causing the warming. For CO2 to cause the earth to cool for 35years, then warm again for the next 35 violates the fundamentals of processcontrol. A noted PhD chemical engineer,Dr. Pierre Latour, wrote on this same subject in a familiar magazine, Hydrocarbon Processing. I had my own blog by then,and wrote an article discussing Dr. Latour’s writings. For CO2 to allow cooling then warming, wouldbe like moving your chair closer to the campfire to cool down on someoccasions, but moving away to cool down on other occasions. I knew right then that CO2 could not do whatthe scientists say it does. Not at thoselow concentrations in the atmosphere, and not at those low temperatures. But, I wanted to look further, so I keptreading and questioning.

About that time, November of 2009, the Climategate scandalbroke when thousands of emails and computer files were released into theinternet. The files were incrediblydamning, and damaging to the climate warmists’ cause because they revealedimproper actions by some of the scientists at the heart of the climatedebate. In damage-control mode, thescientists at the Hadley Center’s Climate Research Unit of the University ofEast Anglia, UK, chose to release some of their files on temperature recordsfor about 1,000 locations around the world. The intent was to show that there was nothing to hide, and in a goodfaith effort, here was the raw data for all the world to see. I copied the files onto my computer and hada look.

First, the so-called raw data was anything but raw. I know raw data, having acquired reams andreams of raw data as a practicing chemical engineer, in refineries and chemicalplants all over the world over more than20 years. What HadCRU (Hadley ClimateResearch Unit) had released was processed data. Their release showed the average monthly temperature over a period ofseveral decades for the chosen cities. The monthly average was created from the daily average temperature. The daily average was created by averaging thehigh and low temperature for the day. The high and low temperature were each sometimes adjusted, or fudged, byaccounting for the time of day for that temperature reading. Also, there was no indication of how missingdata was replaced or created. Instrumentsare not 100 percent reliable, and sometimes require attention. They may require cleaning, calibration, partsreplacement, or other servicing. Theymay be out of service for a period while someone notices the data is missingand fixes the instrument.

Yet, here was a data set of monthly averages for about a thousand cities. I decided to look at what was there, for the USA. There were 87 records, all in the lower 48states. The data were for cities allacross the USA, not in every state, but in most states, and were fairly evenlydistributed. Some were in great citieslike New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, some in mid-sized cities likeSt. Louis, Spokane, and Fresno. Otherswere in small cities or large towns, like Abilene, Texas, and Meridian,Mississippi. I loaded the data for each city into apopular spreadsheet and made graphs of the monthly temperature versustime. I included a moving average to seewhat trends were apparent, if any, then added a linear best-fit trendline. The results were so fascinatingthat I uploaded all the graphs onto my blog, with some commentary. What I found confirmed what I had suspectedall along. CO2 cannot do what the scientists claim it does.

What the graphs showed was a terrible inconsistency in thewarming of cities in the USA. Somecities did, indeed, show a pronounced warming trend over a roughly 100 yearperiod from 1900 to 2009. Not allcities had data that extended that far back, though, as only 62 had long-termrecords. Yet, other cities among those62 had cooling trends, or neutral trends. That seemed odd, because if CO2 was truly warming the earth, then itmust be warming every part and not being selective about what to warm and whatto ignore. This is especially true foradjacent cities, or those not separated by great distances north to south. There would be some difference, supposedly,for cities in the far north compared to those near the equator. But, the USA is only about 1500 miles fromnorth to south in the lower 48 states. For the earth’s total distance from pole topole of approximately 12,000 miles, that is barely more than 10 percent. For cities that are only one or two hundredmiles apart, it seemed very odd to me that CO2 would ignore one and focus itsheating rays on the other. Physics doesnot work that way. If a phenomenon istruly a physical effect, it works consistently and equally at all times andplaces. Gravity, for instance, has thesame downward force in Houston, Texas as it does in Mumbai, India, or BoraBora. Onecan imagine the confusion if travelers had to adjust to different gravityeffects depending on what city their plane had landed in. No, physics does not play whimsical gameslike that.

Or, one could imagine how chaos would reign if theproperties of steel were capricious, like CO2. Engineers might be building a bridge in Cairo, Egypt, and require heftysteel beams 12 inches wide and 24 inches deep. But, an identical bridge across the Mediterranean in Rome would requirelighter beams of only 4 inches width and 12 inches deep. Engineers will laugh at this, because thatsimply does not happen. A given gradeand quality of steel will hold up the identical weight, no matter where in the worldit is used. Purists will note that thisis not strictly true, as steel is somewhat affected by temperature. But, for most purposes, bridges do not gethot enough to weaken the steel noticeably.

At this point, I looked at adjacent cities and noted thatsome cities, as I wrote above, showed a cooling or neutral trend. Abilene, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana aretwo of those. Abilene shows a slight cooling of 0.19 degreesC per century, while Shreveport shows a very slight cooling of 0.01degrees Cper century; essentially no change at all. These cities are only approximately 250miles apart, east to west. They are atessentially the same latitude. At thesame time, St. Louis, Missouri, shows a warming of 1 degree C per century. St. Louis is only approximately 300 milesnorth and a bit east of Shreveport, and approximately 400 miles fromAbilene. Clearly, something is amissin the CO2-causes-global-warming science. How could CO2 know to ignore Shreveport, but focus its beams on St.Louis?

Another example came to my attention: San Francisco,California, and its neighboring city, Sacramento. These cities are separated by only about 50miles, and nearly at the same latitude. Yet, San Francisco had a warming of 1.5 degrees C per century, whileSacramento cooled by 0.3 degrees C per century.

One possibility that explains the heating versus cooling orno trend is what I learned was called the Urban Heat Island effect, orUHI. At first I thought this referredto the University of Hawaii until I finally found what the acronym spelled out. UHI is a phenomenon that causes cities, orlarge urban areas, to be hotter during the day, and warmer during the night,compared to more rural areas nearby. TheUHI effect is small for small cities, but grows larger for large cities. The UHI is due to several factors, includingexpanses of asphalt and concrete paving, stone or brick or glass-and-steelbuildings, great consumption of electricity to heat or cool the buildings,industrial heat from factories and other heavy industries, and large numbers ofcars, trucks, buses, and airplanes that consume great quantities of fossilfuel.

But, even UHI has problems. For example, Meridian, Mississippi is a small town and it is warming atthe identical rate as the large city in Texas, San Antonio. Both show a modest warming of 0.26 degrees Cper century. How can that be, if UHI isimportant?

Other small cities show substantial warming, such as Helena,Montana and Duluth, Minnesota, at 2 degrees C per century. Duluth’s population hasn’t changed muchfrom around 80,000 people since 1930. Itreached 107,000 in 1960 but has been decreasing since then. Helena has grown from about 12,000 in 1910 to28,000 in 2010.

I want to turn briefly to the amazing small town of Eureka,California. I have never been there, butit is on the coast in northern California between San Francisco and the Oregonborder. When the winter Olympics areheld near 2075, Eureka should put in a bid as the host city. It will soon be covered in snow year-round,and may have a localized ice age if the present cooling trend does notreverse. Eureka has, starting in about1990, had a cooling trend of approximately 15 degrees C per century. Its average temperature currently is about10 degrees C, so in 65 years the average temperature will be zero C. Onecan only wonder why CO2 has ignored the small town of Eureka. If any town needed some global warming, itwould be Eureka.

Finally, my attention was turned to a published study by Dr.James Goodridge, the former state climatologist for California, nowretired. His work showed that California’scounties could be grouped in three groups according to population, and the averagetemperature trend for each group computed. He found that counties with large populations showed a distinct increasingtemperature over 80 years, while those with small populations showedessentially no warming at all. Themid-sized counties showed an intermediate amount of warming. One must seriously question how CO2 didthat, in a state as geographically large and diverse as California. The large population counties are typicallyon the coast, with the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, and SanFrancisco. Small population counties areall across the state, including on the remaining coastal areas. It ishighly unlikely that CO2 is smart enough to pick and choose which counties inCalifornia will receive its warming beams, and which counties will be ignoredby CO2.

To summarize the journey to this point, then, I found thatscientists claim the earth is warming at an alarming rate, but there was aprevious warming of equal magnitude and duration (1910-1940) during a periodwhen atmospheric CO2 was at low concentration. Also, the earth stopped warming and cooled a bit from 1940 to 1975, thenstarted the warming again. For CO2 tocause a warming, then a cooling, then a warming again is impossible andviolates the fundamentals not only of physics but of process control. Finally, CO2 ignores completely some citiesin the USA, indeed entire counties in California, while warming adjacent citiesand counties with large populations at an alarming rate. CO2 isa simple molecule with one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms, and cannotpossibly be that smart.

All the above was more than enough to convince me that thethreat man-made global warming is false, it is a hollow threat, and has zerosubstance. Yet, if one reads the policysummaries and scientific studies, the premise is that CO2 causes warming andmore CO2 causes more and faster warming. All else follows from that failed premise.

Still, there is more to the story. I want to describe what I found when I lookedat the temperature record itself, the one that shows a warming from 1910 to1940, a cooling from then until 1975, then a warming again until about2000. To preface this, it is important to know thatin engineering data collection and analysis, indeed in any scientific datacollection and analysis, it is only rarely appropriate to go back and changeone’s data. It is extremelyinappropriate to change one’s data over and over again. That requires some explanation.

The question is, how accurate is any data? The data here, for climate purposes, andwhether the Earth is warming or cooling, is temperature data. Temperature data can be obtained veryaccurately and very precisely with modern technology. Not to get too technical with this, butaccuracy and precision are not the same thing. Accuracy can be considered as how close to the truth is the measurement,while precision is the measure of how many decimal places are believable in themeasurement. In the early days ofthermometers, it was difficult to calibrate them and also difficult to obtain areading within half a degree. Thus, thethermometer may have read 80 degrees on a fine sunny day but due tomis-calibration, the actual temperature was only 78 degrees. What is not known in many cases is when athermometer broke and was replaced. Itis also not known if the replacement thermometer was calibrated to read thesame as the earlier one. Finally, if different observers read thethermometer, one may have judged the reading to be 70.5 degrees, while anotherwould read it to be 70 degrees. Theseseem like small differences, and they are. However, the entire warming over the past century was said to be only0.7 degrees C, or roughly 1.2 degrees F.

My attention was called to some amazing work by E. M.(Michael) Smith, who runs a blog titled chiefio.wordpress.com. The pertinent portions of his blog entriesare known as The March of the Thermometers. Michael is rather a whizz at computer programming and data analysis. He accessed the publicly-available massivedata and computer code used at NASA by Dr. James Hansen, known as the GISScode. I believe GISS stands for GoddardInstitute for Space Studies. Michael unraveled the code, and wrote of hisfindings in several postings. The keyfindings were that the code re-writes the past data each time it is run. Also, the code makes questionable choices inhow missing data is treated, and how discontinuous data is splicedtogether. Another and, to me, mostimportant finding was that Hansen deleted major portions of the temperaturemeasurement stations in recent years. That does not appear to be random but perhaps (likely?) was chosen in away to show much more warming in recent years. In effect, the temperature trend that results from NASA GISS isfalse. I highly recommend that anyonewho is curious about the temperature history of the last 120 years or so readwhat E.M. Smith wrote about it. Thepast data is not only changed, it is changed frequently. If missing data is discovered, the computercode simply reaches out to an adjacent station that can be 1200 kilometersdistant (about 700 miles!!!) and uses that data.

Then, the entire system spits out a global averagetemperature based on anomalies from thousands of measuring stations around theworld. Anomalies are another area forcreating great mischief. The problemlies in having some cities in cold locations, and others in warmer locations. What climate scientists do is assign eachmonth an average temperature, based on some pre-determined period of about 30years. Some use 50 years, though, forreasons not clear to me. Further, thebase period is not the same but is updated every ten years or so. Again, moving targets withconstantly-adjusted data. It reminds meof the ancient three-shell game with the pea, where the mark tries to keep hiseye on the shell that has the pea under it while the con-man shuffles them allaround.

The use of anomalies supposedly allows one to merge or blendtemperature trends together without concern over where the average temperature was5 degrees (Alaska) or 25 degrees (Bora Bora). Still, it is quite disconcerting to see yet another opportunity for datamanipulation. A better method, in myview, is to obtain the data trend for each decade, for each station. If the station showed a warming trend of 0.1degree per decade, then that 0.1 goes into the averaging pot. There would be no anomalies, no base periods,no changing base periods every 10 years, just a simple, one-time calculation ofthe decadal trend. That decadal trendwould then be golden and not subject to change.

Another very disconcerting revelation was the excellent workby Anthony Watts, who was mentioned earlier in connection with his blog, WattsUp With That. Anthony also performed aheroic task in assessing the vast majority of the USA’s climate measuring stations. His assessment focused on how well or howpoorly each station was situated, or sited, according to the existingguidelines. For example, a well-sitedstation must be a certain distance from trees, from buildings or otherstructures, must be placed at the correct height over a grass area, and not besubjected to artificial heating or cooling measures such as an air conditioningexhaust. What Anthony found was appalling. He wrote up his findings along with severalco-authors and had a paper published in 2011 (summary here). Manystations ranked as the poorest rating, and only a few had the best rating. Some were indeed mounted next to brick walls,on asphalt parking lots, next to air conditioner condensers, next to barbecuepits, on asphalt rooftops, at airports where they are heated by massive runwaysand jet exhaust, and other unacceptable locations. These are the sources of the temperature recordsfor the USA, which is supposed to be the best and most accurate of any countryin the world. Where the sitingconditions become important is how the temperatures are affected over time,over a period of years. A rural setting would likely show lowerreadings in the early years, but warmer and warmer readings as buildings arebuilt, roads are installed, parking lots are installed, and other suchthings. Thus, part of what Anthony didwas determine how much of any demonstrated warming trend was due to sitingchanges.

There are a few more points, and I will finish.

First, sea levels are not rising and oceans are not gettinghotter. This alone disproves the entireCO2-induced global warming nonsense. Bythe warmists’ belief, the oceans must grow warmer, and the sea levels mustincrease as CO2 increases. Neither ishappening. In fact, the opposite is happening. NASA and NOAA’s own data show this quite clearly. The chart below is from U. Colorado, and is based on NASA's satellites that measure sea level. Note on the chart the dramatic decrease in trend starting in about 2005, and the sudden decrease in sea level in early 2010.

First-part B, Sierra Nevada snowpack and snow-water-equivalent (SWE) have not changed significantly in almost 100 years. Dr. John Christy of University of Alabama, Huntsville, published a paper on this in 2010. His data ended in 2009. Since then, there have been near-record snowfalls in the Sierras. His key graph is shown below, normalized to show deviation from the average. From his paper, HL refers to a key snow measuring station, Huntington Lake. The paper is at this link.

Second, a recent peer-reviewed paper from CERN shows thatclouds and sunspots are related, with the 20^th century having greatsunspot activity, but the little ice age had few to zero sunspots. Recently, in the last 4 years or so, our sun hasagain gone suddenly very, very quiet and it is getting cooler. The lack of sunspots came as a complete surpriseto scientists all around the globe. Therelationship is that more sunspots equals hotter climate. The mechanism is that the sun’s magneticfield is immense, and grows larger and more intense as sunspot activityincreases. The magnetic field shieldsthe Earth from Galactic Cosmic Rays, GCRs. However, when GCRs hit the atmosphere, they create cloud nucleationparticles and more clouds form. Moreclouds reflect more sunlight away from the Earth, and cooling occurs. Once again, more evidence that the science isnot settled. Heck, they cannot evenpredict how many sunspots, nor when they will occur. The CERN experiment and published paper wasonly a few weeks ago.

Third, climate models cannot agree, and their projections donot match the satellite measurements. This shows that the science is far fromsettled, and when a model fails to match the measured data, the models arewrong and must be scrapped or improved if possible. A very recent paper by Spencer and Braswellhas caused an uproar in the climate community because it shows very clearlythat the climate models are far off in their predictions. The satellite data doesn’t match the models.

Fourth, hurricanes are not growing more intense and ingreater numbers. In fact, hurricaneenergy is at a historic low for the entire period of satellites. Meanwhile, CO2 continues to increase. Another busted prediction, proving theirideas are totally nonsense. The chart below, from Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University, shows the current status of the world's tropical cyclones measured as Accumulated Cyclone Energy from 1972 until today. The top line is the total for the world, the bottom line is for the Northern Hemisphere. The total cyclone energy is back to what it was in the middle 1970s, and meanwhile CO2 continues to rise.

Fifth, and finally, the only prediction the warmists havecorrectly made is the continual reduction in the Arctic ice cap. However, they have the cause and effectcompletely wrong, for the following reasons. First, the warmists maintain that a shrinking ice cap is strong evidencethat the Arctic area is warming, and that warming is due to the heat raysbeamed down by CO2 in the atmosphere. In reality, ice acts as an insulator and prevents heat from beingreleased from the ocean into the night sky via radiation. Ice acts in a similar way on lakes, it keepsthe lake from freezing solid unless the lake is very shallow. The growing and retreating Arctic ice acts asa negative feedback on the ocean’s heat content. When the oceans are warm, the ice begins tomelt at the edges. There is thus more openwater that loses heat due to radiation. The ice extent is at a minimum usually around mid-September, which allowsgreat amounts of heat loss in the long polar nights. The oceans then cool, which eventually coolsthe air, and allows more ice to form in future years. The system oscillates then between more iceand less ice, with the ocean temperature and heat content also oscillating butslightly out of phase.

In conclusion, if anyone still believes that CO2 does what scientists claim it does, I suggest you think about that the next time you are at a campfire, or near a candle, or any other fairly stable heat source. Move toward it, then move back. Also, find a nice masonry wall that has ample sunshine on it. Just after dusk, when the sun is no longer shining on the wall, place your hand on the wall and feel its warmth. Then, move slowly away from the wall and see how long you can continue to feel the warmth. Think about that little CO2 molecule, having to also feel that warmth, get all excited, absorb the heat, and then re-radiate the heat back out again. Remember that scientists insist that the Earth warmed from 1910 to 1940 - yet CO2 was very, very low.

Also, have a look at Anthony's blog and E.M. Smith's blog. Think about this: if the science is settled and we must act now or lose the Earth's future to a hell of warming, rising oceans, monster hurricanes and all the rest, why did the CERN experiment show that clouds are far more important than CO2? Why do the satellite temperature measurements show the models' predictions are all wrong? Why has nothing ever panned out for the climate warmists? The only thing they can point to is the declining ice in the Arctic, but as I discussed above, they have that completely wrong.

Finally, have a look at the temperature graphs of the USA's cities on SLB. See for yourself how many, many cities have zero warming or a slight cooling. Then, ask yourself how can that be? How did CO2 get so smart that it can selectively ignore some cities?

CO2 is innocent. It always has been, and always will be.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

CARB Cuts AB 32 by Half

2011-07-25T17:27:00.000-07:00

It's a momentous time in California, with the Air Resources Board (ARB or CARB) just announcing reduced targets for CO2 emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, aka AB 32. see this link. The short version is that ARB have cut the required reductions approximately in half. The reasons cited are 1) reduced economic activity in California, and 2) some federal laws that were not in place in 2008 now require similar reductions, thus, it would be double-dipping to count those.

Some background, and the numbers, California's AB 32 requires the state to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions to 427 million tonnes per year of CO2-equivalent, by the year 2020. The CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) allows non-CO2 gases to be converted and counted as if they were CO2. The 427 million tonnes is what ARB calculated were emitted during 1990 - and it's really just an educated guess. No one really knows how much was emitted in 1990. Before the recent announcement, ARB had estimated that in 2020, California would emit approximately 600 million tonnes CO2-e without AB 32. This is the BAU (business as usual) case. The difference, 600 minus 427, is 173 which must be reduced by a long list of items that make up the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

I am not trying to take any credit for the reduction that ARB has just announced, however, in December 2008, I did write a letter to ARB's chairperson and stated that it was not accurate for AB 32 to claim credit for federal laws already on the books. see this link for the letter. Those reductions would occur even without AB 32. Of course, I received no reply to my letter. One particular item I wrote about was reduced emissions due to more-efficient cars, which in California is known as the Pavley standards. The federal law recently adopted most of the Pavley standards.

ARB's new target for reductions by 2020 is about half of the previous target, with 80 million tonnes CO2-e. ARB states that the deep and prolonged recession has reduced some of the CO2-e already.

We can all stay tuned, as California's economy worsens still more. At the current rate of collapse, the target 427 million tonnes CO2-e will be met entirely by economic recession in about, let's see, four more years. Call it 2016.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Chinese Nuclear Power Plant Costs

2011-07-25T17:00:00.000-07:00

This post was prompted by something I've seen written many times on various blogs and news reports for the past couple of years, that new nuclear power plants are NOT expensive. In fact, they say, China is building dozens of them for about $2 billion (US dollars) per reactor, where the reactor produces 1000 MW. I have my doubts about the $2 billion per reactor, (which is $2,000 per kW) as those who read and follow SLB are probably aware. In the USA, some recently-published numbers for proposed new nuclear power plant projects are more like $8,000 per kW. As an example, the now-defunct South Texas Nuclear Power Plant Expansion was to have two reactors at 1100 MW each, with a published cost estimate of $17 billion. That works out to $7,730 per kW, but it also ignores the inevitable cost over-runs, and extra interest costs for long delays. I would be surprised if that STNP Expansion would be built for less than $25 billion or roughly $12,000 per kW.

Therefore, I was quite interested to read a news item today, regarding a large new nuclear power plant under construction in southern China. The plant will have six reactors, at 1000 MW each. Total cost should be $12 billion, using the $2,000 per kW figure I've seen bandied about. Yet, CLP Holdings, LTD, purchased a 17 percent interest in the plant for $11 billion. CLP is a utility company in Hong Kong. CLP's 17 percent represents roughly the output from one-sixth of the entire plant, or one reactor. If 17 percent of the plant is worth $11 billion, then the entire plant is worth approximately $64 billion. That works out to a bit more than $10,000 per kW. That is much more in line with what new nuclear plants are projected to cost in the USA.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Nuclear Plants Delayed Again

2011-07-23T15:23:00.000-07:00

More news this week from the dismal world of building a new nuclear power plant. As if the AREVA-designed project in Finland is not having enough troubles, now the same design is having serious problems and delays in France, at Flamanville. (on the Normandy coast near the English channel). see this link for one of several stories.

New nuclear power plants are routinely plagued by costly delays, and cost over-runs. The recent news states a two-year delay, from 2014 to 2016, and a cost over-run of 1 billion Euros (from 5 billion up to 6 billion). As always with these monstrosities, it is very likely that neither target will be met. Startup will likely be later than 2016, and the final cost much more. How much more, it is difficult to say.

In a perfect world, governments would require each nuclear power plant to be a self-contained business entity, responsible for its own profits and losses. If this were the case, the true costs of nuclear power would be transparent and available for all to see. Would the new reactor in Finland sell power for 3 cents per kWh, as so many pro-nuclear advocates insist is the true cost of nuclear power? That is very unlikely, since approximately 25 to 3o cents per kWh is required just to pay off the capital costs, and the operating costs. How about the new reactor at Flamanville? Same thing holds true.

In the USA, the South Texas Nuclear Project Expansion has been scrapped, which is a shame actually. It would have been very instructive to have that project proceed, with massive cost over-runs, and lengthy schedule delays so that the true cost of nuclear power from it would be at least 30 cents per kWh. In a world literally running over with natural gas at $4 per million Btu, and technology easily available to build efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power plants that produce almost 60 units of electrical power for each unit of natural gas input, 30 cents per kWh puts nuclear power plants out of the running.

Still, there are a couple of other candidates for demonstrating the nuttiness of new nuclear power plants in the USA, in particular the Vogtle proposed plant. Perhaps it will be the new poster-boy for why the USA cannot afford any more nuclear power plants, and inflict high utility bills on the good customers in the South.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

California's AB 32 Jobs Still Absent

2011-07-23T13:39:00.000-07:00

From my earlier posts on SLB regarding AB 32, California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Nunez), it is clear that I hold a dim view of the law, the necessity for the law, the so-called scientific basis for the law, and its effect on the state's economy. This post is an update on the last aspect, the effect on the state's economy. For some perspective, AB 32 has a multitude of components, with more than 70 separate line items in the Scoping Plan. It is generally stated by the media, and even some within the Air Resources Board (ARB or CARB), that AB 32 will not be implemented until January, 2012. That is misleading at the best, and an outright false statement at the worst. AB 32 has a number of line items already in place, in fact, there are "Early Action Items" listed prominently on ARB's website. However, some of the line items will be in force next January, while one rather large piece has been delayed until at least 2013. The big delay is for Cap and Trade. More on that a bit later.

AB 32 was (or is) supposed to change California's emissions of CO2 and a few other so-called "greenhouse gases" by reducing those emissions according to a timetable. The initial reduction and time-target was down to 1990 levels by 2020. This means that, on an absolute tons emitted per year basis, by 2020 California would emit the same amount as was emitted in 1990. In practice, that requires approximately a 30 percent reduction compared to the "business-as-usual" case. CARB uses the abbreviation BAU for business-as-usual. An additional target was then set by the Governor to 80 percent below the 1990 level by the year 2050. Stated another way, California in 2050 can only emit 20 percent of what it emitted in 1990. After allowing for economic growth and population growth, the "80 by 50" requirement actually requires more than a 90 percent reduction in CO2 emissions compared to the BAU for 2050.

As I've written elsewhere on SLB, expecting to achieve this is quite absurd. The "80 by 50" requirement is absolutely a death-knell for California's economy. No economy in modern times (or ancient times, for that matter) has ever demonstrated an ability to conduct commerce, transportation, supply reliable and affordable energy (i.e. electricity), produce agricultural crops, produce and deliver clean water, collect and dispose of waste, and all the other aspects of a large and diverse economy with such a low CO2 output. None. But, CARB and the California government have the utmost faith that it will be done. They have some vague notions that fossil fuel-fired power plants will have the CO2 captured and sequestered, that cars, trucks, and buses will run just fine on bio-fuels or hydrogen or electricity, and a great portion of electricity supply will be from renewable sources such as wind and solar. They have grand plans for each citizen to conserve and reduce electric power consumption by some vague means, and by a "smart grid" that will reduce power consumption even more.

So much for the basics.

All of AB 32's requirements are supposed to be technically feasible, and are touted as creating jobs for California's economy. With January 2012 less than six months away, it is time to look for those jobs. Supposedly, California companies are producing bio-fuels, for example. Solar panels are another big requirement, and the jobs to manufacture and install them. Smart grid components and the installers for them is another item. The list of AB 32 items and the jobs they are supposed to create is long. Yet, the most ridiculous of the jobs-related aspects is what ARB stated in the beginning: each Californian will have approximately $250 per year of extra, disposable income as a result of AB 32. That works out to approximately $5 per week, which is enough to buy a cup of premium coffee each week. The additional sales of coffee will create great numbers of jobs in the retail sector.

The reality is that California is leading the entire nation in unemployment rate - with the sole exception of Nevada. The recent figures for June, 2011 are now public and show California with 11.8 percent. (Nevada is at 12.4 percent). So, the question remains unanswered, where are the AB 32-related jobs in California? Only six months from now, nearly all of the 70-plus line items are to be in place. Will millions of new jobs magically appear on January 1, 2012? Will coffee baristas be in short supply, so that most of the just-graduated teens can find employment? Somehow, that seems rather unlikely.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Nuclear Nightmare Approaching Fast

2011-06-20T17:45:00.000-07:00

UPDATE 1: (see end of article)

A few facts: nuclear fission power presently provides approximately 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S., through 104 nuclear reactors that were designed in the 1960s and 1970s, and constructed primarily in those decades. The plants were designed for a 40 year life.

Nuclear proponents would have us believe that new nuclear power plants should be built in great numbers because, they say, that nuclear power is perfectly safe, reliable, and cheap. It also has no need for importing fuel from nations that would do us harm, plus we can keep American money at home in America. Furthermore, they say, the nuclear power plants produce zero pollution and no greenhouse gas, CO2.

I have written previously on several of these points, disputing each one.

This article has as its main theme the fact that nuclear power is dangerous, and grows more dangerous with each passing week and month. These plants are old, are beginning to show signs of wear and tear, and are dangerously close to creating a nuclear radiation release that will produce great harm. This is based on a just-released report from The Associated Press, found at this link.

A brief excerpt:

"Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety - and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States."

The article goes on to list a number of areas where the nuclear power plants - rather, their owners - are allowed to continue operating without repairs. The standards are relaxed to meet the situation, rather than requiring the situation to be corrected to meet the standards.

Nuclear power plants are, in some ways, similar to other facilities that engineers design and construct. For example, oil refineries, chemical plants, steel mills, automobile assembly plants, shipyards, ports, even locomotives, ships, trucks, and cars are all designed and built by engineers and workmen. A nuclear power plant, for example, has vessels that are made of a type of steel, with a designated wall thickness to provide the desired strength. There is a safety factor applied to that wall thickness, just in case the steel is not quite as strong as is expected. Also, an additional thickness is added to the design, to account for corrosion. The usual procedure in refineries and chemical plants is to periodically inspect the vessel, measure the wall thickness, and decide whether the vessel can continue in operation until the next shut down period, or if it must be removed from service and replaced. Yet, in the nuclear industry, the AP investigation found that the allowable standards are reduced, rather than force the nuclear plant owner to replace the part.

This policy of changing the standards may, and I must stress, MAY, be appropriate where the initial design had a very large safety factor. However, from reading the AP's report, it appears that the deficiencies are far greater than what was expected.

It is time that the nuclear power industry in the US be held accountable. We can not afford a nuclear accident with the spewing of deadly radioactive material across hundreds of square miles and millions of people affected.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

UPDATE 1: (June 23, 2011) - AP reports also that more than three-quarters of all US nuclear plants have leaked tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, often into groundwater. The leaks are from corroded, buried piping. Tritium itself is fairly harmless, as its radiation cannot penetrate the human skin. However, if ingested via food, water, or breathing, it becomes far more toxic.

More troubling is the leakage of radioactive forms of Cesium and Strontium.

See this link. -- End update 1 -- RES

The Quiet Sun and Approaching Cold Era

2011-06-14T20:54:00.000-07:00

Today, June 14, 2011, is an important day in the on-going debate over whether man's activities * cause the Earth's climate to change, in particular to over-heat. The reason today is important is that the AAS, American Astronomical Society, today announced publicly that the sun has entered an unexpected calm period, which could lead to the Earth's cooling similar to another Maunder Minimum (the Little Ice Age of 1645 to 1710). The lack of sunspots is the key issue. It is well-known that the Maunder Minimum period also had few, if any, sunspots.

For more on this, see Anthony Watts' excellent blog, at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/14/all-three-of-these-lines-of-research-to-point-to-the-familiar-sunspot-cycle-shutting-down-for-a-while/

* Some of man's activities definitely show up in the measured temperatures, for example, the urban heat island (UHI) effect is quite apparent in many cities. Farming activities that release huge clouds of dust also must certainly impact measured temperatures. Planting greenery and crops, as was done for decades in Southern California as the area was populated, also likely has had some effect on the local temperatures, probably downward.

The importance of the AAS announcement is that there is now a formal, leading scientific body that goes against the "consensus" that climate science is settled, that man is responsible for global warming, and that man's use of fossil fuels is the leading cause. What is more likely is that some warming was caused by the sun's very active state in the past few decades. How can one distinguish between an active sun and its effect, and CO2 and its effect (if any)? We will probably find out over the next decade or two, if the sun continues in its quiet state.

Dramatic cooling can and will cause major disruptions in the Earth's economies and the lifestyles of billions of people. Anecdotal evidence from the Little Ice Age show that growing crops is a challenge. Heating buildings and homes is also a great challenge. Keeping animals alive during brutal winters is also a problem.

More importantly, from a legal viewpoint, California's global warming law, AB 32, can now be challenged as not being based on the best science.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Is Sea Level Rising in Santa Monica Bay?

2011-05-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

This article is to document the extent of sea level rise on coastal flooding in an area near where I live and work, in Santa Monica Bay in Southern California, USA. The photos below are mine, taken on Thursday May 19th, 2011 in the late afternoon. The occasion was a combination of some fairly large waves, or ocean swells, with the high tide. There was no flooding of property from this event, as is evident in the photos. If the global warming alarmists are correct, this area of coast should be flooded regularly in the coming decade or two, certainly by 2050 when, they predict, sea levels will rise by a foot or more. It is my hope that someone, somewhere, will also have photos or videos of the present and can contrast these photos with the sea levels at that time.

The high tide of 6.2 feet occurred the night before these photos were taken, on Wednesday May 18th, 2011 at 10:35 p.m. Another, smaller, high tide of 3.6 feet occurred just before these photos were taken, at 12:28 p.m. The large swells were from the south, and were predicted to be 7 to 9 feet and occurring approximately 15 to 16 seconds apart. My observations showed the waves were quite a bit smaller than predicted. My estimate is approximately 5 to 6 feet swells. They were almost exactly 15 seconds apart.

This part of the coast is directly south of Marina del Rey's channel, and the mouth of Ballona Creek. There are many homes and condos built right on the beach, approximately 400 feet from the water. This is Dockweiler Beach, a public beach, with a well-used concrete sidewalk for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The first photo, Figure 1 below, shows the aftermath of debris and wet sand from the high tide and waves. The concrete sidewalk is approximately 15 feet wide. The bay is to the right, approximately 100 feet from the sidewalk. The water barely made it to the far side of the sidewalk.

Figure 1

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking South

(click on image for a larger view)

Next, the photo in Figure 2 shows another incursion of the water, and the debris carried by that water right up to the sidewalk. This view is just a few feet north of Figure 1. Note the tire track to the left of the photo.

Figure 2

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking North

Next, here in Figure 3 is shown the same image as in Figure 2, but looking just a bit to the left (or west) to show the distance to the bay. The tire track in the right of the photo is the same as that shown in Figure 2. The wave breaking in the left center (white foam) is approximately 4 feet high. There are four people taking some sun in the center-left of the photo. The buildings on the horizon (center right) are the two-story lifeguard headquarters and one-story public restrooms.

Figure 3

View of Dockweiler Beach, 5-19-2011 looking North

Next, in Figure 4 is the same water debris incursion, looking to the east and showing the many homes located at beach level. There are also many homes on the hill in the background. The unidentified person walking by provides some perspective and scale.

Figure 4

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking East

Finally, in Figure 5, is shown another area of water incursion along and just past the bike path. This is just a few feet to the north of the previous photos. Many more beach-front homes are shown to the right. Also shown to the right are several volleyball nets. Beach volleyball is a popular pastime in Southern California, both as a participatory and people-watching event.

Figure 5

View of Dockweiler Beach, bike path, 5-19-2011 looking North

It can be seen that the homes depicted above will be flooded if the sea levels rise as much as is predicted by the global warming alarmists. There are other homes and structures along the California coast that are in much more danger than these. These homes sit well back from the water. The expanse of sand acts as a sponge to absorb the water from the waves. However, if the sea levels rise two or three feet, these homes will likely be flooded regularly.

Of course, the satellite data shows the seas are not rising, in fact, the Pacific Ocean's level is dropping as I described in an earlier post. These homes are quite safe. CO2 has nothing to do with any changes in climate. If CO2 caused any type of global warming, the sea levels would indeed be increasing, and all the oceans would rise. Clearly, the Pacific Ocean did not get the word that it is supposed to be rising.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Are Sea Levels Rising or Falling?

2011-05-08T12:46:00.000-07:00

Recently, I wrote a guest post (see link) on Anthony Watts’ world-class blog, WattsUpWithThat.com, the topic of which was a recent round of lawsuits (proposed and actual) related to climate change. In my writing, I made the statement that many dire events are predicted by the warmists when (if) the Earth’s climate becomes hotter due to man-made global warming. I wrote: (bold emphasis added for this post, not included in the original on WUWT)

“A greatly hotter planet is predicted to have dire consequences. Among the predicted events are millions of climate refugees, massive reduction in coral reefs due to ocean acidification, inundated seashores from rising sea levels, with the sea level increase caused by hotter ocean water and melted polar ice caps, frequent and unusually strong hurricanes or tropical cyclones, weather too hot to grow crops, prolonged and devastating heat waves, and outbreaks of heat-related diseases and the attendant deaths.” I then wrote “ The fact that CO2 has risen over the past 50 years, yet none of the dire events have occurred surely will not be overlooked by the defense attorneys. The facts that CO2 continues to rise, and the global and regional temperatures are falling, and the ocean levels are falling, and the ocean temperatures are falling, also will surely be emphasized by the defense attorneys.”

A reader then took exception to one phrase, “. . . and the ocean levels are falling, . . .” He or she challenged me to support that statement with evidence. So, I did. I wrote:

“ . . . the sea level data from sealevel.Colorado.edu shows a mix of ocean level trends, with some point locations rising, but some falling since the satellite measurements began in 1992. For example, my previous investigations for the data along the California coast shows a decrease in sea levels, not an increase. However, even the global mean sea level trend has stabilized since 2006, and shows a slight downward trend in some of the individual ocean basins. For example, the trend for the Pacific Ocean shows +0.23 mm/year since the end of 2005. However, there is a significant spike in the data for the last half of 2009, which is highly questionable as to its accuracy. Without that data spike, the trend since 2005 shows a decrease of (minus) -0.18 mm/year. By “without that spike,” my meaning is to manually adjust the data downward by 10 mm, starting with the data point labeled 2009.5741 and ending with 2009.927. This hand-correction opens up a can of worms, as criticism can be leveled at why should the correction be made only for those data points, and why choose 10 mm as the adjustment? Why not make similar adjustments to low-lying data?

My response to those arguments is that the data appears to have outliers, far beyond the normal range of data oscillations. In my professional experience as an engineer, such outliers deserve special attention to determine several things. First, do they indicate a problem with the measuring instruments? Second, if there are no instrument problems, was there a data transmission or recording or transcription error? Third, if none of those problems exist, and given what we know to be true in physics and engineering, is it physically possible, or even probable, that such a change in the measured parameter could happen in such a short time? Fourth, when a trend over time is the critical question, what is the impact of having the outlier included, and then excluded in that trend calculation? This last question is especially critical when the outlier cannot be explained.

This is a long way of saying that I don’t for a minute believe there was an upward spike in the actual sea level in the last half of 2009, across the entire Pacific Ocean. We may never know, of course, as it is impossible to go back in time to take the measurements again. We cannot repeat the experiment, in other words. Therefore, everyone can make of this what they choose. Some, of course, will disagree with me and they have every right to do so. I can see an inflection point in the global mean sea level trend, somewhere around the middle of 2005, as many others have noted and written on. What was a clearly rising trend suddenly became a zero trend, or with a slight declining trend if the apparently spurious spike in 2009 is taken away.

Thus, my statement that the ocean levels are falling. And, this is occurring even with a continuing increase in CO2. As developing economies consume greater quantities of coal, the increase in CO2 should escalate. If the warmists were correct, ocean levels should be rising at a greater rate. Clearly, they are not. Such evidence would be great fun to present in a court of law.”

Here, I will present the graphical support for the statements and conclusions above. Figure 1 (below) shows the sea level anomalies for the Pacific Ocean Basin since 1992, from the above-mentioned source, sealevel.colorado.edu as of May 4, 2011. The straight-line trend shows an average increase of 2.59 mm/year, or 259 mm per century. For Americans, that works out to barely more than 10 inches in a century; one inch per decade. (254 mm would be 10 inches, so this is only 5 mm more than 10 inches).

Figure 1

Pacific Ocean Basin Mean Sea Level Anomalies and Trend

(click on chart for larger version)

However, Figure 1 has a most interesting aspect. There is a definite break in the upward trend starting in mid-2005. From that point forward, the sea level rise has essentially stopped, and appears to be decreasing. Therefore, I plotted out only the data since 2005 (see Figure 2). The linear trend of Figure 2 is +0.23 mm/year, or 23 mm per century. That is barely less than one inch.

But, an even more intriguing aspect exists for Figure 2. There is an upward “bump” in the data in the final six months of 2009, which appears somewhat odd. I referred to this above as a “significant spike” in the data.

Figure 2

Pacific Ocean Basin Mean Sea Level Anomalies and Trend

Since 2005

(click on chart for larger version)

As shown in Figure 3, the “significant spike” was adjusted downward manually. With this adjustment, the linear trend is downward, or (minus) -0.18 mm/year, or 18 mm per century.

Figure 3

Pacific Ocean Basin Mean Sea Level Anomalies and Trend

Since 2005, Adjusted Last Half of 2009

(click on chart for larger version)

In conclusion, the satellite data shows that something significant, something unusual, occurred in the end of 2005. The generally upward trend, slight though it was at approximately 2.6 mm per year, made an abrupt switch. That significant something indicates the ocean levels are no longer increasing. From a climate change perspective, and especially the catastrophic Global Warming predictions, this is an important event.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

Below are the data that was used in the above charts. The first column, "year" shows the year with the week indicated after the decimal. The second column, "msl_ib(mm)" shows the mean sea level (msl) anomaly as measured in millimeters (mm). Where there is a third column, the data is the value after manually subtracting 10 from the mean sea level quantity.

year msl_ib(mm) #version_2011_rel1

1992.9323 -1.486

1992.9595 -5.771

1992.9866 -25.939

1993.0138 -27.168

1993.0409 -31.424

1993.0681 -26.150

1993.0952 -29.214

1993.1223 -17.263

1993.1495 -20.071

1993.1766 -19.212

1993.2038 -16.808

1993.2309 -2.934

1993.2581 -17.298

1993.2852 -11.920

1993.3124 -7.738

1993.3395 -17.114

1993.3667 -19.102

1993.3938 -17.776

1993.4210 -8.777

1993.4481 -11.516

1993.4753 -4.756

1993.5024 -8.066

1993.5296 -8.458

1993.5567 -14.213

1993.5839 -5.229

1993.6110 2.473

1993.6382 -3.918

1993.6653 -8.046

1993.6925 -3.971

1993.7196 -4.677

1993.7468 -2.375

1993.7739 -1.457

1993.8010 -3.732

1993.8282 -2.044

1993.8553 -19.762

1993.8825 -11.975

1993.9096 -2.466

1993.9368 -7.063

1993.9639 -3.717

1993.9911 -10.801

1994.0182 -12.038

1994.0454 -6.875

1994.0725 -5.255

1994.0997 -17.532

1994.1268 -17.331

1994.1540 -28.244

1994.1811 -7.218

1994.2083 -15.977

1994.2354 -7.343

1994.2626 -10.297

1994.2897 -11.519

1994.3169 -9.268

1994.3440 -17.643

1994.3712 -16.789

1994.3983 -25.515

1994.4255 -16.652

1994.4526 -13.122

1994.4798 -21.699

1994.5069 -9.741

1994.5340 2.584

1994.5612 1.977

1994.5883 -6.170

1994.6155 -9.692

1994.6426 -0.417

1994.6698 -5.553

1994.6969 0.574

1994.7241 1.651

1994.7512 -13.184

1994.7784 -13.052

1994.8055 -1.527

1994.8327 -4.111

1994.8598 -3.466

1994.8870 -11.701

1994.9141 -19.910

1994.9413 -12.198

1994.9684 -6.225

1994.9956 -8.456

1995.0227 -12.520

1995.0499 -7.632

1995.0770 2.084

1995.1042 -7.986

1995.1313 -16.003

1995.1585 -20.015

1995.1856 -1.545

1995.2128 1.991

1995.2399 -19.846

1995.2670 -21.026

1995.2942 -18.411

1995.3213 -12.348

1995.3485 -28.584

1995.3756 -23.496

1995.4028 -17.048

1995.4299 -23.640

1995.4571 -18.013

1995.4842 -8.506

1995.5114 -2.396

1995.5657 -11.279

1995.5928 -8.463

1995.6200 -11.265

1995.6471 -6.019

1995.6743 -5.051

1995.7014 2.060

1995.7286 -4.240

1995.7557 -11.793

1995.7829 -2.624

1995.8100 -16.228

1995.8372 -8.110

1995.8643 -7.071

1995.8915 -9.104

1995.9458 -17.448

1995.9729 -14.554

1996.0000 -12.533

1996.0272 -25.578

1996.0543 -21.023

1996.0815 -19.339

1996.1086 -9.820

1996.1358 -4.298

1996.1629 -12.155

1996.1901 -18.272

1996.2172 -17.852

1996.2444 -16.229

1996.2715 -11.495

1996.2987 -5.392

1996.3258 -7.383

1996.3530 -17.568

1996.3801 -15.233

1996.4073 -24.187

1996.4344 -6.655

1996.4616 -10.022

1996.4887 -1.090

1996.5159 -11.351

1996.5430 -3.120

1996.5702 1.027

1996.5973 7.756

1996.6245 -1.135

1996.6516 3.761

1996.6788 6.628

1996.7059 0.862

1996.7330 -0.286

1996.7602 0.077

1996.7873 -12.093

1996.8145 -2.468

1996.8416 2.250

1996.8688 -3.316

1996.8959 -15.110

1996.9231 -7.431

1996.9502 -6.337

1996.9774 -1.417

1997.0045 -8.540

1997.0317 -23.637

1997.0588 -27.977

1997.0860 -7.600

1997.1131 -19.916

1997.1403 2.822

1997.1674 -11.162

1997.1946 -14.802

1997.2217 -13.449

1997.2489 2.620

1997.2760 4.502

1997.3032 -8.379

1997.3303 -9.565

1997.3575 -12.882

1997.3846 -9.367

1997.4118 5.056

1997.4389 0.033

1997.4660 2.361

1997.4932 -0.987

1997.5203 4.889

1997.5475 9.102

1997.5746 22.517

1997.6018 7.607

1997.6289 16.499

1997.6561 7.891

1997.6832 5.615

1997.7104 11.960

1997.7375 28.554

1997.7647 14.698

1997.7918 12.168

1997.8190 9.296

1997.8461 4.881

1997.8733 3.700

1997.9004 9.248

1997.9276 17.072

1997.9547 4.089

1997.9819 7.660

1998.0090 -4.219

1998.0362 1.530

1998.0633 -7.962

1998.0905 7.657

1998.1176 1.009

1998.1448 -3.447

1998.1719 -14.055

1998.1990 -7.810

1998.2262 -2.120

1998.2533 2.024

1998.2805 -5.206

1998.3076 -6.432

1998.3348 -2.764

1998.3619 -15.602

1998.3891 -17.663

1998.4162 6.065

1998.4434 8.740

1998.4705 -6.931

1998.4977 -10.119

1998.5248 -15.512

1998.5520 -10.138

1998.5791 -18.846

1998.6063 1.604

1998.6334 -10.658

1998.6606 -9.011

1998.6877 -6.899

1998.7149 -4.434

1998.7420 6.578

1998.7692 3.433

1998.7963 -23.800

1998.8235 -9.777

1998.8506 -1.830

1998.8777 13.178

1998.9049 0.387

1998.9320 10.445

1998.9592 -13.730

1998.9863 -11.690

1999.0135 -13.324

1999.0406 4.443

1999.0678 -20.479

1999.0949 -8.997

1999.1221 -10.664

1999.1492 -11.500

1999.1764 -4.696

1999.2035 -11.470

1999.2307 19.950

1999.2578 6.461

1999.2850 -12.132

1999.3121 -11.087

1999.3393 -3.948

1999.3664 -9.701

1999.3936 -5.175

1999.4207 1.612

1999.4479 -3.482

1999.4750 -5.375

1999.5022 -3.170

1999.5293 -0.353

1999.5565 11.188

1999.5836 -5.150

1999.6107 -0.195

1999.6379 4.151

1999.6650 -9.725

1999.6922 8.222

1999.7193 14.343

1999.7465 8.878

1999.7736 14.397

1999.8008 8.236

1999.8279 10.616

1999.8551 11.801

1999.8822 8.111

1999.9094 -0.531

1999.9365 -8.548

1999.9637 3.986

1999.9908 4.432

2000.0180 -0.565

2000.0451 -8.416

2000.0723 -6.039

2000.0994 -12.676

2000.1266 -5.719

2000.1537 9.891

2000.1809 4.080

2000.2080 7.529

2000.2352 9.674

2000.2623 -25.511

2000.2895 -3.363

2000.3166 -1.585

2000.3437 6.222

2000.3709 -5.692

2000.3980 -11.024

2000.4252 -8.984

2000.4523 -0.897

2000.4795 7.830

2000.5066 9.358

2000.5338 14.725

2000.5609 -3.741

2000.5881 -3.509

2000.6152 13.350

2000.6424 16.318

2000.6695 15.923

2000.6967 20.860

2000.7238 14.314

2000.7510 16.200

2000.7781 22.300

2000.8053 14.957

2000.8324 13.796

2000.8596 16.710

2000.8867 9.220

2000.9139 17.346

2000.9410 10.647

2000.9682 12.717

2000.9953 14.890

2001.0225 2.224

2001.0496 -4.476

2001.0767 -6.792

2001.1039 1.999

2001.1310 5.674

2001.1582 11.634

2001.1853 4.292

2001.2125 6.119

2001.2396 9.107

2001.2668 9.753

2001.2939 14.194

2001.3211 15.772

2001.3482 2.419

2001.3754 5.291

2001.4025 0.608

2001.4297 4.637

2001.4568 8.147

2001.4840 16.470

2001.5111 16.674

2001.5383 16.058

2001.5654 8.362

2001.5926 22.418

2001.6197 30.018

2001.6469 19.201

2001.6740 15.256

2001.7012 21.082

2001.7283 21.512

2001.7555 22.435

2001.7826 19.299

2001.8097 17.283

2001.8369 14.945

2001.8640 6.213

2001.8912 13.794

2001.9183 13.543

2001.9455 17.139

2001.9726 6.399

2001.9998 0.661

2002.0269 -4.249

2002.0541 3.636

2002.0812 4.086

2002.1084 9.182

2002.1355 8.188

2002.1627 2.279

2002.1898 -0.072

2002.2170 11.181

2002.2441 16.766

2002.2713 20.688

2002.2984 9.809

2002.3256 7.105

2002.3527 8.923

2002.3799 16.298

2002.4070 13.147

2002.4342 13.951

2002.4613 9.205

2002.4885 33.801

2002.5156 32.310

2002.5427 23.925

2002.5699 31.002

2002.5970 20.790

2002.6242 31.008

2002.6513 24.038

2002.6785 20.451

2002.7056 22.940

2002.7328 25.659

2002.7599 28.961

2002.7871 28.605

2002.8142 40.830

2002.8414 28.113

2002.8685 36.796

2002.8957 37.708

2002.9228 31.883

2002.9500 21.026

2002.9771 13.672

2003.0043 17.140

2003.0314 14.896

2003.0586 16.558

2003.0857 23.254

2003.1129 14.095

2003.1400 5.103

2003.1672 15.592

2003.1943 12.493

2003.2214 16.062

2003.2486 17.145

2003.2757 15.688

2003.3029 14.643

2003.3300 -2.371

2003.3572 6.656

2003.3843 21.598

2003.4115 17.099

2003.4386 8.932

2003.4658 0.599

2003.4929 -1.904

2003.5201 14.773

2003.5472 24.663

2003.5744 21.987

2003.6015 22.827

2003.6287 15.495

2003.6558 27.129

2003.6830 34.483

2003.7101 29.843

2003.7373 17.824

2003.7644 22.696

2003.7916 21.445

2003.8187 16.681

2003.8459 16.059

2003.8730 22.121

2003.9002 30.394

2003.9273 24.145

2003.9544 16.364

2003.9816 18.559

2004.0087 16.115

2004.0359 14.764

2004.0630 13.711

2004.0902 13.886

2004.1173 10.665

2004.1445 24.145

2004.1716 24.532

2004.1988 21.958

2004.2259 18.275

2004.2531 25.585

2004.2802 18.355

2004.3074 28.265

2004.3345 6.751

2004.3617 16.021

2004.3888 31.001

2004.4160 17.824

2004.4431 13.313

2004.4703 16.578

2004.4974 27.053

2004.5246 35.658

2004.5517 30.882

2004.5789 20.432

2004.6060 20.551

2004.6332 22.091

2004.6603 27.025

2004.6874 31.066

2004.7146 31.953

2004.7417 22.671

2004.7689 22.977

2004.7960 26.029

2004.8232 25.597

2004.8503 19.157

2004.8775 34.075

2004.9046 19.000

2004.9318 19.071

2004.9589 21.288

2004.9861 22.863

2005.0132 9.980

2005.0404 7.564

2005.0675 17.231

2005.0947 21.605

2005.1218 24.175

2005.1490 27.218

2005.1761 31.271

2005.2033 24.516

2005.2304 1.163

2005.2576 10.944

2005.2847 22.766

2005.3119 8.722

2005.3390 14.094

2005.3662 24.647

2005.3933 18.498

2005.4204 13.527

2005.4476 10.517

2005.4747 28.728

2005.5019 33.957

2005.5290 20.532

2005.5562 26.893

2005.5833 35.955

2005.6105 19.034

2005.6376 20.821

2005.6648 36.776

2005.6919 43.582

2005.7191 35.716

2005.7462 24.423

2005.7734 34.436

2005.8005 42.993

2005.8277 44.890

2005.8548 39.958

2005.8820 41.181

2005.9091 28.913

2005.9363 21.455

2005.9634 32.159

2005.9906 40.387

2006.0177 27.457

2006.0449 15.249

2006.0720 20.739

2006.0992 27.078

2006.1263 24.080

2006.1534 20.989

2006.1806 29.243

2006.2077 14.859

2006.2349 20.911

2006.2620 20.724

2006.2892 26.006

2006.3163 11.493

2006.3435 18.458

2006.3706 14.947

2006.3978 13.771

2006.4249 17.823

2006.4521 21.147

2006.4792 27.871

2006.5064 26.496

2006.5335 24.825

2006.5607 25.118

2006.5878 33.534

2006.6150 30.139

2006.6421 27.590

2006.6693 25.275

2006.6964 29.346

2006.7236 39.852

2006.7507 38.106

2006.7779 36.168

2006.8050 31.744

2006.8321 16.974

2006.8864 31.352

2006.9136 23.923

2006.9407 29.740

2006.9679 23.080

2006.9950 17.493

2007.0222 22.334

2007.0493 16.642

2007.0765 23.088

2007.1036 21.522

2007.1308 23.301

2007.1579 23.528

2007.1851 20.336

2007.2122 14.105

2007.2394 16.908

2007.2665 19.075

2007.2937 28.294

2007.3208 16.378

2007.3480 23.531

2007.3751 18.976

2007.4023 22.323

2007.4294 10.762

2007.4566 23.032

2007.4837 14.731

2007.5109 22.903

2007.5380 18.037

2007.5651 23.751

2007.5923 31.015

2007.6194 30.765

2007.6466 20.630

2007.6737 19.297

2007.7009 27.876

2007.7280 34.705

2007.7552 31.855

2007.7823 25.394

2007.8095 18.442

2007.8366 20.701

2007.8638 34.582

2007.8909 35.878

2007.9181 26.700

2007.9452 21.755

2007.9724 16.414

2007.9995 21.419

2008.0267 27.400

2008.0538 22.421

2008.0810 19.235

2008.1081 9.821

2008.1353 21.663

2008.1624 20.260

2008.1896 20.054

2008.2167 20.441

2008.2439 19.659

2008.2710 25.040

2008.2981 10.276

2008.3253 10.937

2008.3524 20.728

2008.3796 27.421

2008.4067 16.943

2008.4339 24.858

2008.4610 25.867

2008.4882 20.712

2008.5153 20.091

2008.5425 23.795

2008.5696 27.041

2008.5968 34.364

2008.6239 30.966

2008.6511 25.322

2008.6782 33.336

2008.7054 26.113

2008.7325 30.574

2008.7597 24.234

2008.7868 25.791

2008.8140 15.091

2008.8411 17.223

2008.8683 19.665

2008.8954 8.434

2008.9226 27.964

2008.9497 20.110

2008.9769 17.634

2009.0040 26.878

2009.0311 34.380

2009.0583 35.118

2009.0854 9.161

2009.1126 15.858

2009.1397 15.744

2009.1669 16.353

2009.1940 13.617

2009.2212 17.307

2009.2483 25.272

2009.2755 16.205

2009.3026 21.752

2009.3298 28.892

2009.3569 22.549

2009.3841 17.170

2009.4112 12.563

2009.4384 13.766

2009.4655 19.241

2009.4927 20.233

2009.5198 26.375

2009.5470 24.946

2009.5741 46.189 36.189

2009.6013 33.244 23.244

2009.6284 33.593 23.593

2009.6556 45.974 35.974

2009.6827 48.901 38.901

2009.7099 40.834 30.834

2009.7370 48.690 38.690

2009.7642 28.640 18.640

2009.7913 31.518 21.518

2009.8184 33.004 23.004

2009.8456 38.716 28.716

2009.8727 38.035 28.035

2009.8999 34.541 24.541

2009.9270 37.662 27.662

2009.9542 28.762

2009.9813 32.680

2010.0085 32.065

2010.0356 37.049

2010.0628 23.005

2010.0899 23.308

2010.1171 20.713

2010.1442 27.327

2010.1714 25.586

2010.1985 21.481

2010.2257 18.349

2010.2528 27.833

2010.2800 22.848

2010.3071 32.387

2010.3343 27.573

2010.3614 23.300

2010.3886 20.300

2010.4157 20.899

2010.4429 12.568

2010.4700 24.594

2010.4971 14.379

2010.5243 21.078

2010.5514 11.878

2010.5786 29.669

2010.6057 18.464

2010.6329 27.665

2010.6600 22.737

2010.6872 13.456

2010.7143 11.011

2010.7415 23.017

2010.7686 19.647

2010.7958 22.741

2010.8229 27.406

2010.8501 28.889

2010.8772 17.497

2010.9044 15.599

2010.9315 21.153

2010.9587 30.305

2010.9858 22.007

2011.0130 25.324

2011.0401 16.801

2011.0673 19.673

Speech on Peak Oil and US Energy Policy

2011-04-17T18:28:00.000-07:00

UPDATE 2: June 11, 2011, I wrote below that OPEC took steps to bring the price of oil down to $80 per barrel to prevent the US from building coal-to-liquids plants and thus reduce imported oil quantities. However, it appears that OPEC now considers $100 per barrel an acceptable price for crude oil. This is approximately 25 percent greater than $80 that was their previous mark. This is likely due to 1) the USA's threat of a "Carbon tax" on new coal-fired power plants, or 2) new EPA requirements for mercury emissions on coal-fired power plants, or 3) any of the other costly environmental restrictions on coal-fired processes, or 4) the devaluation of the US dollar due to Obama's inflationary spending during his term of office ($800 billion stimulus spending, Quantitative Easing, huge budget deficits). Compared to 1980, a coal-to-liquids plant built in 2012 would very likely cost 25 percent more in real terms. This would allow OPEC to increase crude oil prices from $80 to $100, a 25 percent increase. OPEC met this week and held production steady, indicating the present prices are acceptable. -- RES

UPDATE 1: April 24, 2011, key slides from the presentation are now included. -- RES

On April 2, 2011, I was honored to speak at Tulane Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana, as one of three panelists discussing US Energy Policy and Peak Oil. While I don't have a recording of the speech, I have included below the prepared remarks. I will post the presentation slides showing the various graphs, soon. This was an excellent event, well-attended, and run extremely well. I enjoyed meeting everyone, and having discussions on many points. I want to extend a special thank you to Mr. Wesley Rosenfeld, Tulane second-year law student for inviting me and acting as my host, also Ms. Sarah Dawkins, Tulane law student and Treasurer of the Environmental Law Society. It was a pleasure to meet and talk to Professor Oliver Houck, who had many kind things to say about the Peak Oil session. It was also a pleasure to meet and exchange views with the other panelists, Mr. John Kaufman and Professor of Law Joshua Fershee. Finally, it was a pleasure to meet our panel's moderator, Dr. Geoffrey Parker, Professor of Economic Sciences and Director of Energy Policy at Tulane University. Thank you to all for making the Tulane Environmenal Law Summit a great success.

Figure 1

Speaking on 4-2-2011 at Tulane Law School, New Orleans

Prepared remarks:

Thank you, Mr. Rosenfeld for inviting me to speak today at the Tulane Law School Environmental Law Summit here in New Orleans. It’s a pleasure for me to return to New Orleans, where I worked some 30 years ago just up the river doing consulting engineering for Kaiser at the Gramercy plant.

Today, I want to address a very serious issue, the US Energy Policy with respect to Peak Oil. This speech today is but a small portion, an overview, of a much longer speech I give on the topic so I’ll just hit the high points.

The main points are divided into two sections, Peak Oil, and Energy Policy. Under Peak Oil, I will discuss why Peak Oil predictions fail and the false model used; Oil demand is not increasing at a compound growth rate; Oil Reserves are increasing; Oil price shocks are not catastrophic; and Many more options exist today.

Under Energy Policy, the main points are Take the Long View; Preserve our domestic resources; Maintain a vital oil industry; Develop Coal-to Liquids; Policy options to increase supply and decrease demand; and finally, OPEC’s new role.

First, Peak Oil has always been a false prediction. I first heard the term Peak Oil in 1972 as a freshman in engineering school. It has been predicted many times since the mid-1950s yet never comes true. The reason is that the model that is used to forecast peak oil is false; it is wrong. To paraphrase one of the US’s most brilliant scientists, Dr. Richard Feynman, when the predictions are wrong, you must get a new model. Dr. Feynman won the Nobel prize in physics for his work in QED, quantum electro-dynamics.

Second, Peak Oil proponents state that the world consumption of oil grows at an ever-increasing, compound annual growth rate or 2 or 3 percent per year. This is false, as the graph clearly shows (Figure 2). During the past 20 years or so, oil growth has been linear, at 1 million barrels per day per year. This chart shows world oil consumption by year, with two prominent peaks that coincide with OPEC oil supply disruptions in 1973 and again in 1979. The growth since 1985 has been very close to linear.

Figure 2: World Oil Production